Task wrote on Sep 17, 2014, 10:05:
Basically the government is the Mafia.

"[US] That sure is a nice...uhm...whatever it is you do now Yahoo...sure would be a shame if anything happened to it..."

MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Sep 15, 2014, 20:51:
Clearly there is no danger of a weaponized version of this hunting us all down in 10-20 years. Clearly.

Dun Dun Dun Da Dun... Dun Dun Dun Da Dun...

I'd imagine my last thought before it kills me would be "That's so cool...".

When has being aquired by Microsoft ever resulted in a good thing? Wait until they reveal that MScraft will only run on Windows 8...

its easy to make simple scenes look great with UE4, but complex scenes with tons of unique assets quickly become a nightmare. UE4 is pretty awesome, but its got a ways to go. Having said that, people are doing really cool stuff with it (check out the work in progress section of the forums at unrealengine.com).

Death, taxes, and [VG]Reagle shit talking in a Carmack thread...

Optional Nickname! wrote on Jul 24, 2014, 15:31:

DangerDog wrote on Jul 24, 2014, 14:39:
Looking at a finely crafted cinematic just makes you realize that you need an Epic sum of money to make a[n] real game interactive movie with Unreal Engine.

Otherwise agreeing with you, I fixed just that.

I would argue that it would be impossible to make the Unreal we all know and love with the current Unreal engine.

Unreal ]|[ certainly didn't advance the series and Unreal Classic wasn't that expensive(?).

p.s. The Unreal franchise has done better than most at preserving fundamental gameplay mechanics.

Sadly, I'd agree with you on that. You need a team of talented people nowadays, as a good game can be pretty complicated. It took me quite a while to do the following simple scene, and the tools involved include Unreal Editor, Photoshop, XNormal, Blender, and Quixel Suite. The days of doing everything in a single program are over

[url=]http://totaliterritory.com/house11.jpg[/url]

Creston wrote on May 15, 2014, 12:23:
The very first frame on the video shows a bint dressed in, basically, a bikini. PLEASE TAKE US SERIOUSLY LOOKIT TEH BOOBIES!

I give this a premature, yet somehow feeling well-deserved, five dismissive wanks.

Yah, it did seem like the camera focus was attached to her chest the entire time. I agree that the whole direction of the video was crap. Will have to wait and see the gameplay.

Parias wrote on May 2, 2014, 14:18:

Creston wrote on May 2, 2014, 14:11:
The last thing Bobby wants to do is come down that $60 price tag, so they keep including a SP campaign few people want or even care about.

Is that really true? I never even bother much with the multiplayer modes in CoD and only really play it for all the scripted craziness in the singleplayer campaigns as I've never been much into competitive gaming. I actually had a lot of fun with CoD1/2's singleplayer.

Why do people dislike the singleplayer modes that much? I didn't realize this was apparently a majority thing.

I dislike the extreme hand-holding linearity of the single player, and the lack of real interactivity. Case in point: final "boss" fight in MW2.

I wonder when Activision realizes their market doesn't give a shit about single player, and they stop wasting time on the 4 hour cinematic mode (oh, you mean it's interactive?).

Maybe the guy didn't accept Putin's friend invite? I hate when people I barely knew try to invite me. Especially ex-KGB.

nin wrote on Apr 22, 2014, 09:39:

The Half Elf wrote on Apr 22, 2014, 09:29:
It's not like you have running water in that van of yours

In Oklahoma, we have chicken shit water, that (obviously) tastes horrible from all the chicken farms upstream. It's so bad the mayor actually went on tv and drank a glass, to prove it was safe.

Bottled water, on the other hand, doesn't have that taste.

Is everyone super-svelte from the salmonella?

Quinn wrote on Apr 17, 2014, 19:30:

Necrophob wrote on Apr 17, 2014, 11:05:
If someone falls for a phishing lure of "you'll need to grant access to this browser by downloading [sic] the special ssfn* file from your Steam folder....", then they deserve what they get.

Meh, piss off. I'm not a computer wizz at all. I play PC games since I was 5 years old (28 now) and I'm pro enough not to fuck up my rig and fix most general issues, but I've no idea wtf an ssfn* file is. If this message would pop up for me, it would completely depend on my state of mind whether I'd obey or flag it as phishing shit.

It looks very legit to me and I don't see any typos in the screenshot. I'm Dutch. To say people who fall for this deserve it is not insulting those people, but a clear portrayal of your lack of empathy. I spit on your demeanor.

Empathy involves being able to see yourself in the same situation as the person in question, and feeling for their pain. But I can't, cause I'm not a moron. If you've ever had to wrestle the squid tentacled arms of a malware off a computer due to user incompetence, you'd feel empathy for me.

If someone falls for a phishing lure of "you'll need to grant access to this browser by downloading [sic] the special ssfn* file from your Steam folder....", then they deserve what they get.

dj LiTh wrote on Apr 16, 2014, 13:05:
I backed it on kickstarter, but i never signed up for an account at their new website. Wonder if i'm gonna have to change my kickstarter password (again).

The ssl cert on kickstarter.com was issued on 4/9/2014, which implies they patched the Heartbleed vulnerability and got a new certificate. I'd change my password just to be safe (and don't use that password again for any of your other sites).

Michael Bolton: We get caught laundering money, we're not going to white-collar resort prison. No, no, no. We're going to federal PMITA prison.
Samir: I don't want to go to ANY prison!

Cutter wrote on Apr 11, 2014, 12:24:
The various world governments really need to get involved in getting cyber-crime agencies the funding they need to start finding and nabbing these assholes. In the past several years the way this has exploded is just fucking ridiculous. Seems like every other day you have to change your PW on a site or worry if your personal info has been compromised. They also need to come down on private enterprise and start mandating security be better, particularly for the large corporations who can easily afford it yet choose not to.

While I agree to some extent, this colossal clusterf**k had nothing to do with hackers (although they are the ones to benefit). This was some developer not checking his code well enough (good explanation), or worse, letting it through intentionally (NSA?). The large businesses using open source code like this would probably benefit from helping examine new commits occasionally, because this was such a simple error.

An explanation of how this works: a peer sends your server a "heartbeat request". This is composed of some random data and the size of the data. Your server (if it supports it), is supposed to return back that random data, yet for some inane reason, they don't check that the size passed in is the actual size of the passed data, and happily returns the passed data and whatever's next to it in server RAM, up to 64K. I don't even get WHY they pass the size of the incoming data...why not just check it when you get it?

I didn't watch the video, but the guy who pops up on the still pic is the most realistic zombie I've ever seen.

eRe4s3r wrote on Apr 9, 2014, 20:32:

Necrophob wrote on Apr 9, 2014, 10:47:

Marvin T. Martian wrote on Apr 9, 2014, 10:16:
Open source---'nuff said.
The Canadian Gov't shut down their Tax web site due to same exploit.

http://tinyurl.com/no6q3qg

You're saying open source projects are inherently less secure than closed source? There are pretty good decompilers around for most languages, so regardless of whether the hacker has access to your original code, he knows what it's doing and can look for vulnerabilities. Microsoft wishes it was otherwise.

Not even Microsoft would have let a commit through to one of the main-stays of internet security, actually the fucking foundation of internet security, that posts your entire secured ssl stream to anyone that asks on the internet. And then dragged their feet for months while it was exploited in the wild.

I think at this point OpenSSL needs to die. This isn't a bug or an exploit, it's a backdoor that was intentionally put in and let through.

Well, it turns out it's not as bad as all that (very bad still). They wouldn't get your unencrypted ssl stream, just 64 kilobyte chunks of server RAM at a time (as many times as they want). So they'd get what's in memory at the time of the hack, which could be most anything, including unencrypted passwords. I just read that the only way they'd get the private ssl key is if they were the first heartbeat request after a server reset.

jimnms wrote on Apr 9, 2014, 21:41:
I don't get the tone of these articles blasting MS for dropping support of XP. It's not Microsoft's problem people haven't upgraded. You can't expect them to continue support of the ancient OS forever just because some people and businesses were too lazy to upgrade. It's not like they just stopped supporting it without warning, they've had several years notice that this was coming.

I still have a computer with XP on it. It's one I pieced together from old parts, with most of it being a system I built almost 10 years ago. I'm not wasting the money to put Win7/8 on it, but I'm not worried about it because it's only used by my niece to play games on. I thought about putting Windows Vista on it because I have an unopened copy of it that I got for 80% off when CompUSA went out of business.

I'm probably going to be building myself a new gaming system soon anyway if some of these "next gen" games come out and my system can't run them on high settings.

Is your niece's game computer connected to your network? Than you should be concerned. What if one of the vulnerabilities that hackers discover (or already have and are waiting to use them) allows them to gain access to the other computers on your network, through the XP machine? The problem is that we just don't know what's going to happen.

NKD wrote on Apr 9, 2014, 14:52:

Wallshadows wrote on Apr 9, 2014, 14:45:
So should I be legitimately worried about this and change all my passwords or is it just something that's being blown way out in to the stratosphere?

Changing all your passwords right now is pointless unless the system in question has been confirmed to be patched. Many systems have not been updated to fix the problem, so you'd risk changing your password and having your new one compromised as well.

Since there's no way of knowing what data was compromised, no one can really tell you how worried you should be.

For important passwords, wait until you get confirmation of a fix then change your password. Or if you get confirmation that the system was never vulnerable in the first place, don't worry about it, or change it anyway.

Not just patched, but they have to get new ssl certificates for their servers.